Dear ,

The core of my work is to help groups focus and become high performance teams. Why is there a need for this kind of work?  Performance within groups typically does not just happen. For a group to really perform well together it needs practice. There needs to be understanding within the group regarding the best way to organize itself for performance. This concept is commonly understood by sports teams and the military. They clearly see the need to give groups opportunities to practice. Boot Camp for the military and pre-season workouts for sports teams are the norm.

It is interesting to note in business that there is far less interest or appreciation of group development and the need for practice. It is, for the most part, not factored into the business or corporate world. We form groups in business and march them into the corporate battle zone expecting them to perform and when they fail we are surprised. When one looks at what business typically does with groups it appears ludicrous. Yet for the most part it is how businesses are organized. 

This whole process was once again revealed to me as CMI goes through the process of putting together itself as a high performance work team. We recently expanded our organization by one.  A full 25% change growth in our employee numbers has caused for a change in our work mix and demands. In essence, there was less of a need for typing up work sheets and more of a demand to do research and marketing.   

As we went through the process, some basic truths about teams, groups and performance were again revealed and they helped me traverse this territory. 

1.  Teams do not spring up by voodoo, magic and/or mystical thinking. My experience is the essence of good work team performance is not good communication or good relationships but a focus on performance and an agreed upon appreciation of what this means. Typically in the work place people are related to each other socially. This means they are concerned with getting along and staying out of each others hair.

Basically, it is the difference between “how do I relate to people at a barbecue?” and “how do I relate to the work group who is trying to win a big contract?” The nature of the relationship is quite different. The first is based on the social contact of lets all just get along and the second is based on the construct of lets get something remarkable done and perform together so that specific results occur.  

2.   Teams enjoy and play games. The vast majority of employees go to work because they have to in order to survive. That is the culture most adults live in. This is different than in the world of sports. People voluntarily play the sport because they want to and like the game. When members of teams fundamentally do not like the games or feel connected to the game the group is playing, there will be real performance issues for the group.  

3.    I agree with the definition of real teams from “The Wisdom of Teams” by John Katzenbach and Douglas Smith who define teams as “A small number of people with complementary skills who are equally committed to a common purpose, goals, and working approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable. Real teams are a basic unit of performance. Where the mischief comes from regarding teams is the members of the team are mutually accountable for the result. This is quite different than how most of the work world is organized.

In the typical work place each employee is accountable for their job and there is no group or team performance that is formally measured or expected. The pretense is that if each employee just does his or her thing it will work out perfectly. Unfortunately the work world is more complicated and in many cases customers are impacted by a group of employees. When a group takes on being mutually accountable for the experience customers have of the business and the results, the group can generate from the business tangible and positive business results occur. 

4.   In sports different games constitute different types of teams. Soccer, because of the nature of the game, will require a different type of team than baseball. Work related teams are similar.  Depending on the work output of the team and the dynamics of the workplace the type of work team that is required is different.  The rules and dynamics that govern the work team will also be different. 

5.   Teams develop in stages. It is good for participants to be aware of these stages because they normalize the experience of growing and developing into a high performance team. The stages are as follows:

Stage A - This is the birth of the group and there is typically some excitement and anticipation about the potential and possibility of the group.

Stage B - This is when reality sets in about how group life can be demanding and hard work. It is no longer fun and there is finger pointing between employees.  Mutual accountability by most is seen as an empty concept and team members look at who to blame. This is where most teams die and where there is the need for the most support and focus. Commitment needs to be generated to work through the issues. This is also where the employees “love of the game” is needed and counted. For most groups Stage B is where the real work counts and is necessary.

Stage C - “Getting behind the game stage” This is when everyone begins to align behind the group’s performance and what needs to happen in order to allow the group to succeed. Real group performance results are for the first time seen.

Stage D – This is the high performance stage, where the team is really using its group structure to produce some remarkable results.  

I hope the above insights are valuable to you and your workgroups.  They have been valuable to me as I seek to establish a high performance team in my office. I invite you to share your experiences in building high performance teams.

Please let me know how I can be useful. 

Be great,

Bruce

For the most part I am part of the crowd that makes fun of MBAs. I am a MBA so I am making fun of myself and the pretense that we know something and that we know something about business.  However this book while a very MBA type book has some really insightful points about the opportunities of growing your business.  

I particularly liked the authors thinking around doing creative segmentation to markets and customer groups in order to create a Blue Ocean from which to grow your business. A Blue Ocean according Kim and Mauborgne is “a previously undiscovered hospitable place that is a combination of customer market segments and service that provides a great place from where to grow the revenue of the company. It’s a place which has no competition in it and allows your organization to dominate the ocean.”  A Blue Ocean is in juxtaposition to a Red Ocean where “head to head competition with many competitors puts blood into the water”, hence the name Red Ocean. 

I also appreciate the fact that the authors encourage business to look at creating a place from which it can dominate versus going head to head in bloody competition which leads to the red ocean concept. While certainly not a new idea, I appreciate the reinforcement of the idea that whenever possible and to whatever extent the goal of business is to build a monopoly in your customers mind so that you are unique in their perception and therefore isolated from competition. This is easier said than done though clearly worth the energy and focus that is required by Blue Ocean thinking. 

It is a scholarly work that reads like a graduate school textbook, which it may very well be. If you are a small to mid sized business you will need to work at translating this book to make it useful in your world. However, it is worth the effort and worth the read. I recommend it. To preview the book click here: Blue Ocean preview.  Let me know what you think and how you are applying the book in your business. 

I am looking forward to hearing your comments and thoughts about it. Please send them in.

Bruce